Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations strongm on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
patition
- Thread starter vaat
- Start date
Probably not appreciably faster. But multiple partitions do make recovery from OS corruption faster. Put all you data files on a seperate partition and then when you have to reload the OS, Just reformat the C: and go.
I also create a seperate partion for the swap file(1 - 2 GB) just to make sure that it has enough room. If you add a second hard drive and move the swap to it you will see a speed gain.
I also create a seperate partion for the swap file(1 - 2 GB) just to make sure that it has enough room. If you add a second hard drive and move the swap to it you will see a speed gain.
- Thread starter
- #3
I understand that but my question is due to the fact how you're computer will acces data on you're harddisk !
You files are arranged in drives, folders and files ! If windows need a file it will look at the directory table of you're disk and will look up the LBN number which contains the adress of the first cluster of you're file. It will then look in the file allocation table where the remaining clusters are !!
So if you make partitions on you're harddisk, will windows find you're data easier and will you notice this difference ??
You files are arranged in drives, folders and files ! If windows need a file it will look at the directory table of you're disk and will look up the LBN number which contains the adress of the first cluster of you're file. It will then look in the file allocation table where the remaining clusters are !!
So if you make partitions on you're harddisk, will windows find you're data easier and will you notice this difference ??
![[morning]](/data/assets/smilies/morning.gif "[morning] [morning]")
Multiple partitions aren't necessarily "faster", but they can be considered "more efficient". What you are saying makes sense, but there are other factors that would level off any gain.
First of all, when you have multiple partitions, you are separating data with free space in-between. In doing so, data gets pushed back further to the inside of the HD where data access is "slightly" slower. We're only talking milliseconds here, but the speed increase you might get from having multiple FAT's is also in milliseconds. So they tend to balance each other out.
Bottom line:
There's no question whether having at least two partitions is better than one. It's always better when dealing with large amounts of data or free space. Defrags can be focused, data can be more easily backed up/restored, etc...
![[deejay]](/data/assets/smilies/deejay.gif "[deejay] [deejay]")
~cdogg
First of all, when you have multiple partitions, you are separating data with free space in-between. In doing so, data gets pushed back further to the inside of the HD where data access is "slightly" slower. We're only talking milliseconds here, but the speed increase you might get from having multiple FAT's is also in milliseconds. So they tend to balance each other out.
Bottom line:
There's no question whether having at least two partitions is better than one. It's always better when dealing with large amounts of data or free space. Defrags can be focused, data can be more easily backed up/restored, etc...
~cdogg
- Thread starter
- #6
ok ! I truly understand you saying that it will be a little faster due to the fact it probably will be more at the inner cylinders of you're harddisk !!
Another subject to be solved it the fact it you will or not will lose less space on you're harddisk if you make partitions. The FAT32 will sperate you're data in clusters of 4 kb for harddisk less than 8 GB. If you have a disk which is larger than this 8 gb, the cluster's will grow larger ! All you're data are in this fixed clustersize ! The last cluster of each file will most of the time not be filled with the 4kb (or more) it can handle. This is you're lose of space ! As the clustersize will grow if you're harddisk gets larger, will it be a good idea to use partions so the clustersize will be less ???
alex
Another subject to be solved it the fact it you will or not will lose less space on you're harddisk if you make partitions. The FAT32 will sperate you're data in clusters of 4 kb for harddisk less than 8 GB. If you have a disk which is larger than this 8 gb, the cluster's will grow larger ! All you're data are in this fixed clustersize ! The last cluster of each file will most of the time not be filled with the 4kb (or more) it can handle. This is you're lose of space ! As the clustersize will grow if you're harddisk gets larger, will it be a good idea to use partions so the clustersize will be less ???
alex
You're exactly right. Here's a chart that you find handy:
Partition Size Cluster size
Less then 512MB 512 Bytes
< = 8GB 4 Kilobytes
< = 16GB 8 Kilobytes
< = 32GB 16 Kilobytes
> 32GB 32 Kilobytes
Honestly, as long as you keep the partition size less than 32MB, you won't notice a whole lot of wasted space difference. Heck, you've got an 80GB hard drive for crying out loud!
Just as a sidenote: the inner portion of the hard disk is "slower" not faster than the outer. That's why it is always best to keep the system partition at the beginning of the HD.
~cdogg
Partition Size Cluster size
Less then 512MB 512 Bytes
< = 8GB 4 Kilobytes
< = 16GB 8 Kilobytes
< = 32GB 16 Kilobytes
> 32GB 32 Kilobytes
Honestly, as long as you keep the partition size less than 32MB, you won't notice a whole lot of wasted space difference. Heck, you've got an 80GB hard drive for crying out loud!
Just as a sidenote: the inner portion of the hard disk is "slower" not faster than the outer. That's why it is always best to keep the system partition at the beginning of the HD.
~cdogg
- Thread starter
- #8
- Status